If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Facebook thing got me to wondering. Right now, government employees have more of their free speech rights intact than private employees.

In Florida, we have a group of people in office who have never hidden their desire to "privatize" as much of the government as they can (and funnel that money into damned few pockets instead). We recently had it discovered that the "private" company overseeing many juvenile justice operations is making over a $1M a year. Last month the scandal was how much the CEO of the state run insurance company was making and spending on himself and executives. These are not examples of government waste; these are examples of blatant theft.

But the question which comes to mind pertains to our own NJCARDFAN. He is a state employee. As such, he enjoys a much broader set of protections than he would working for a government contractor, not the least of which would be that his status as a LEO would change for the lesser. If Prisontron Inc. were to decide they didn't like his posts on conservativeunderground, what would keep them from firing a nonstate employee who has no First Amendment protections? Or do employees who have been shaffted out of their state jobs retain the status of state employee even though they answer to Prisontron Inc.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

The Facebook thing got me to wondering. Right now, government employees have more of their free speech rights intact than private employees.

In Florida, we have a group of people in office who have never hidden their desire to "privatize" as much of the government as they can (and funnel that money into damned few pockets instead). We recently had it discovered that the "private" company overseeing many juvenile justice operations is making over a $1M a year. Last month the scandal was how much the CEO of the state run insurance company was making and spending on himself and executives. These are not examples of government waste; these are examples of blatant theft.

But the question which comes to mind pertains to our own NJCARDFAN. He is a state employee. As such, he enjoys a much broader set of protections than he would working for a government contractor, not the least of which would be that his status as a LEO would change for the lesser. If Prisontron Inc. were to decide they didn't like his posts on conservativeunderground, what would keep them from firing a nonstate employee who has no First Amendment protections? Or do employees who have been shaffted out of their state jobs retain the status of state employee even though they answer to Prisontron Inc.

Why do you assume that the first amendment protects anyone from being fired? Freedom of speech doesn't project one from the consequences of said speech? If government employees can say pretty much what they feel without consequences (which they can't ask anyone in the military) then it is not the first amendment that protects their job but the government union that they belong to.

Both a private company and the government will release someone from employment if they say or do something that embarassess the employer or put the employer in a difficult situation.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Introduction
Does the First Amendment allow the government to use a public employee's speech as the ground for discharge or denying a promotion? The Supreme Court's answer to this question was at one time a simple "Yes." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1892, "There may be a constitutional right to talk politics, but there is no constitutional right to be a policeman." The so-called right/privilege distinction was maintained even as late as 1952 when, in Adler v Board of Education, the Court said, "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government."
By 1967, however, the Court would note that "the major premise of Adler has been rejected." In its place was a new premise: that the government ought not to be able to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. The Court took the position that public employment cannot be conditioned on a surrender of constitutional rights. The problem for the Court then became how to balance the government's interest in maintaining an efficient public workplace against the individual employee's interest in free expression.

Pickering v Board of Education considered the case of a public school teacher fired for writing a letter to a newspaper critical of the local school board. In ordering the teacher reinstated, the Court found that a public employee's statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for discharge unless the statement contained knowing or reckless falsehoods, or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.

under the First Amendment. See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384 (1987). ("The threshold question . . . is whether [an employee's] speech may be 'fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern.'").

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized that public employees could sue for retaliation in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). "[I]t is apparent that the threat of dismissal from public employment is nonetheless a potent means of inhibiting speech." Pickering, 391 U.S. at 574. In Pickering, the Court recognized the special vulnerability of the public employee and the societal benefits of protecting employment-related speech. The Court set out the balancing test that remains controlling law today: "the interests of the [employee] as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern" must be balanced against "the interest of the State as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

In 1983, the Court stated, "Our responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983).

"Government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work; public debate may gain much from their informed opinions. And a government employee, like any citizen, may have a strong, legitimate interest in speaking out on public matters." Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 674 (1994)

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

If Prisontron Inc. were to decide they didn't like his posts on conservativeunderground, what would keep them from firing a nonstate employee who has no First Amendment protections? Or do employees who have been shaffted out of their state jobs retain the status of state employee even though they answer to Prisontron Inc.

Have you ever had to sign a Code of Conduct form after reading the Code of Conduct handbook when starting with a new company? I've never worked for the government but I've signed off on a Code of Conduct for every private employer I've ever worked for. Break the code, lose the job, so I guess it would depend on the policies of Prisontron.

Have you ever had to sign a Code of Conduct form after reading the Code of Conduct handbook when starting with a new company? I've never worked for the government but I've signed off on a Code of Conduct for every private employer I've ever worked for. Break the code, lose the job, so I guess it would depend on the policies of Prisontron.

Promising to protect the secrets of Apple computer (like that the Ipad is a piece of shit for example) or refraining from defamatory language about Apple Computer (like that the iPad is a piece of shit for example) is hugely different from agreeing to be silent about the conduct or condition of the state prisons as an employer or another branch of law enforcement.

People like Rick Scott look at the expense for a government function and see an opportunity to buy favor by giving that money to a friend.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun